Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 451 | control, N = 221 | treatment, N = 231 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 45 | 50.53 ± 12.60 (25 - 72) | 49.85 ± 12.81 (25 - 72) | 51.19 ± 12.65 (32 - 72) | 0.725 |
gender | 45 | 0.463 | |||
f | 29 (64%) | 13 (59%) | 16 (70%) | ||
m | 16 (36%) | 9 (41%) | 7 (30%) | ||
occupation | 45 | 0.978 | |||
day_training | 1 (2.2%) | 1 (4.5%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 5 (11%) | 3 (14%) | 2 (8.7%) | ||
homemaker | 2 (4.4%) | 1 (4.5%) | 1 (4.3%) | ||
other | 2 (4.4%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (8.7%) | ||
part_time | 8 (18%) | 4 (18%) | 4 (17%) | ||
retired | 13 (29%) | 6 (27%) | 7 (30%) | ||
self_employ | 2 (4.4%) | 1 (4.5%) | 1 (4.3%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (4.4%) | 1 (4.5%) | 1 (4.3%) | ||
unemploy | 10 (22%) | 5 (23%) | 5 (22%) | ||
marital | 45 | 0.893 | |||
divore | 5 (11%) | 3 (14%) | 2 (8.7%) | ||
married | 8 (18%) | 3 (14%) | 5 (22%) | ||
none | 26 (58%) | 13 (59%) | 13 (57%) | ||
seperation | 3 (6.7%) | 2 (9.1%) | 1 (4.3%) | ||
widow | 3 (6.7%) | 1 (4.5%) | 2 (8.7%) | ||
edu | 45 | 0.679 | |||
bachelor | 13 (29%) | 5 (23%) | 8 (35%) | ||
diploma | 7 (16%) | 5 (23%) | 2 (8.7%) | ||
hd_ad | 2 (4.4%) | 1 (4.5%) | 1 (4.3%) | ||
postgraduate | 4 (8.9%) | 2 (9.1%) | 2 (8.7%) | ||
primary | 4 (8.9%) | 1 (4.5%) | 3 (13%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 3 (6.7%) | 1 (4.5%) | 2 (8.7%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 11 (24%) | 7 (32%) | 4 (17%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 1 (2.2%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.3%) | ||
fam_income | 45 | 0.797 | |||
10001_12000 | 3 (6.7%) | 1 (4.5%) | 2 (8.7%) | ||
12001_14000 | 2 (4.4%) | 2 (9.1%) | 0 (0%) | ||
14001_16000 | 4 (8.9%) | 1 (4.5%) | 3 (13%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (4.4%) | 1 (4.5%) | 1 (4.3%) | ||
18001_20000 | 1 (2.2%) | 1 (4.5%) | 0 (0%) | ||
20001_above | 9 (20%) | 6 (27%) | 3 (13%) | ||
2001_4000 | 5 (11%) | 2 (9.1%) | 3 (13%) | ||
4001_6000 | 7 (16%) | 3 (14%) | 4 (17%) | ||
6001_8000 | 5 (11%) | 3 (14%) | 2 (8.7%) | ||
8001_10000 | 3 (6.7%) | 1 (4.5%) | 2 (8.7%) | ||
below_2000 | 4 (8.9%) | 1 (4.5%) | 3 (13%) | ||
medication | 45 | 38 (84%) | 18 (82%) | 20 (87%) | 0.699 |
onset_duration | 45 | 16.04 ± 12.52 (0 - 56) | 17.24 ± 14.47 (1 - 56) | 14.89 ± 10.53 (0 - 35) | 0.535 |
onset_age | 45 | 34.50 ± 12.38 (15 - 62) | 32.61 ± 11.19 (16 - 55) | 36.31 ± 13.43 (15 - 62) | 0.322 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 451 | control, N = 221 | treatment, N = 231 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 45 | 3.44 ± 1.24 (1 - 5) | 3.41 ± 1.30 (1 - 5) | 3.48 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 0.854 |
recovery_stage_b | 45 | 18.42 ± 2.62 (9 - 23) | 18.50 ± 2.87 (9 - 23) | 18.35 ± 2.42 (14 - 23) | 0.848 |
ras_confidence | 45 | 30.80 ± 4.70 (19 - 40) | 30.41 ± 4.52 (19 - 40) | 31.17 ± 4.94 (22 - 39) | 0.591 |
ras_willingness | 45 | 12.31 ± 2.03 (7 - 15) | 12.36 ± 1.81 (9 - 15) | 12.26 ± 2.26 (7 - 15) | 0.868 |
ras_goal | 45 | 17.69 ± 3.01 (12 - 24) | 17.64 ± 3.03 (12 - 23) | 17.74 ± 3.06 (12 - 24) | 0.911 |
ras_reliance | 45 | 13.51 ± 3.06 (8 - 20) | 13.32 ± 2.77 (8 - 18) | 13.70 ± 3.36 (8 - 20) | 0.684 |
ras_domination | 45 | 10.20 ± 2.38 (3 - 15) | 10.95 ± 1.68 (8 - 15) | 9.48 ± 2.74 (3 - 14) | 0.036 |
symptom | 45 | 29.38 ± 10.10 (14 - 56) | 28.41 ± 8.67 (14 - 45) | 30.30 ± 11.41 (15 - 56) | 0.535 |
slof_work | 45 | 22.89 ± 4.93 (10 - 30) | 23.36 ± 4.69 (15 - 30) | 22.43 ± 5.22 (10 - 30) | 0.534 |
slof_relationship | 45 | 26.36 ± 5.68 (11 - 35) | 26.95 ± 5.74 (15 - 35) | 25.78 ± 5.69 (11 - 35) | 0.495 |
satisfaction | 45 | 21.18 ± 6.74 (5 - 30) | 19.95 ± 6.56 (5 - 29) | 22.35 ± 6.83 (5 - 30) | 0.238 |
mhc_emotional | 45 | 11.58 ± 3.60 (4 - 18) | 11.36 ± 3.08 (6 - 17) | 11.78 ± 4.09 (4 - 18) | 0.701 |
mhc_social | 45 | 15.16 ± 4.98 (6 - 26) | 15.68 ± 5.00 (8 - 26) | 14.65 ± 5.01 (6 - 23) | 0.494 |
mhc_psychological | 45 | 22.31 ± 6.26 (6 - 36) | 21.95 ± 6.29 (10 - 33) | 22.65 ± 6.35 (6 - 36) | 0.713 |
resilisnce | 45 | 17.11 ± 4.69 (6 - 25) | 17.14 ± 4.54 (6 - 24) | 17.09 ± 4.93 (7 - 25) | 0.972 |
social_provision | 45 | 13.71 ± 3.22 (5 - 20) | 13.50 ± 2.91 (8 - 20) | 13.91 ± 3.55 (5 - 19) | 0.672 |
els_value_living | 45 | 17.18 ± 2.98 (5 - 23) | 16.95 ± 2.17 (12 - 20) | 17.39 ± 3.63 (5 - 23) | 0.629 |
els_life_fulfill | 45 | 13.18 ± 3.35 (4 - 18) | 12.36 ± 3.39 (5 - 17) | 13.96 ± 3.18 (4 - 18) | 0.111 |
els | 45 | 30.36 ± 5.69 (9 - 40) | 29.32 ± 4.74 (20 - 36) | 31.35 ± 6.42 (9 - 40) | 0.236 |
social_connect | 45 | 27.13 ± 10.07 (8 - 48) | 27.18 ± 9.09 (8 - 45) | 27.09 ± 11.14 (8 - 48) | 0.975 |
shs_agency | 45 | 14.36 ± 4.78 (3 - 20) | 13.91 ± 4.42 (3 - 20) | 14.78 ± 5.16 (3 - 20) | 0.546 |
shs_pathway | 45 | 16.82 ± 3.73 (4 - 22) | 16.45 ± 3.39 (9 - 22) | 17.17 ± 4.06 (4 - 22) | 0.523 |
shs | 45 | 31.18 ± 7.86 (7 - 42) | 30.36 ± 7.37 (16 - 41) | 31.96 ± 8.39 (7 - 42) | 0.503 |
esteem | 45 | 12.53 ± 1.24 (10 - 15) | 12.73 ± 1.08 (10 - 14) | 12.35 ± 1.37 (10 - 15) | 0.309 |
mlq_search | 45 | 15.27 ± 3.32 (3 - 21) | 15.27 ± 3.25 (6 - 21) | 15.26 ± 3.45 (3 - 20) | 0.991 |
mlq_presence | 45 | 13.73 ± 3.96 (3 - 21) | 14.14 ± 2.92 (6 - 19) | 13.35 ± 4.79 (3 - 21) | 0.511 |
mlq | 45 | 29.00 ± 6.63 (6 - 41) | 29.41 ± 5.98 (12 - 40) | 28.61 ± 7.32 (6 - 41) | 0.691 |
empower | 45 | 20.07 ± 4.28 (6 - 28) | 20.27 ± 3.68 (11 - 24) | 19.87 ± 4.86 (6 - 28) | 0.756 |
ismi_resistance | 45 | 14.98 ± 2.79 (5 - 20) | 15.14 ± 2.27 (12 - 19) | 14.83 ± 3.26 (5 - 20) | 0.714 |
ismi_discrimation | 45 | 11.22 ± 3.13 (5 - 19) | 11.91 ± 2.96 (5 - 17) | 10.57 ± 3.20 (5 - 19) | 0.151 |
sss_affective | 45 | 9.47 ± 4.19 (3 - 18) | 9.86 ± 3.40 (3 - 15) | 9.09 ± 4.87 (3 - 18) | 0.540 |
sss_behavior | 45 | 9.44 ± 4.38 (3 - 18) | 10.00 ± 4.23 (3 - 18) | 8.91 ± 4.55 (3 - 18) | 0.412 |
sss_cognitive | 45 | 7.82 ± 3.98 (3 - 18) | 7.41 ± 3.55 (3 - 15) | 8.22 ± 4.39 (3 - 18) | 0.502 |
sss | 45 | 26.73 ± 11.65 (9 - 54) | 27.27 ± 9.79 (9 - 44) | 26.22 ± 13.40 (9 - 54) | 0.765 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.41 | 0.253 | 2.91, 3.91 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.069 | 0.355 | -0.626, 0.764 | 0.846 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.686 | 0.465 | -0.225, 1.60 | 0.154 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.481 | 0.710 | -1.87, 0.910 | 0.504 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.033 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 18.5 | 0.559 | 17.4, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.152 | 0.782 | -1.68, 1.38 | 0.847 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.146 | 0.589 | -1.30, 1.01 | 0.809 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.669 | 0.909 | -1.11, 2.45 | 0.478 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 30.4 | 0.994 | 28.5, 32.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.765 | 1.391 | -1.96, 3.49 | 0.585 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.588 | 0.690 | -0.765, 1.94 | 0.413 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.062 | 1.068 | -2.03, 2.15 | 0.955 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.431 | 11.5, 13.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.103 | 0.603 | -1.28, 1.08 | 0.865 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.443 | 0.526 | -1.47, 0.587 | 0.414 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.487 | 0.811 | -1.10, 2.08 | 0.558 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.6 | 0.650 | 16.4, 18.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.103 | 0.909 | -1.68, 1.88 | 0.910 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.114 | 0.662 | -1.18, 1.41 | 0.866 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.903 | 1.022 | -2.91, 1.10 | 0.395 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.3 | 0.651 | 12.0, 14.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.377 | 0.911 | -1.41, 2.16 | 0.681 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.132 | 0.407 | -0.665, 0.928 | 0.752 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.526 | 0.629 | -0.708, 1.76 | 0.421 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 11.0 | 0.490 | 10.0, 11.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.48 | 0.685 | -2.82, -0.134 | 0.036 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.12 | 0.833 | -2.75, 0.516 | 0.194 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.56 | 1.277 | -0.944, 4.06 | 0.235 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.080 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 28.4 | 2.195 | 24.1, 32.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.90 | 3.070 | -4.12, 7.91 | 0.540 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.10 | 1.779 | -4.59, 2.39 | 0.549 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.95 | 2.751 | -3.44, 7.34 | 0.493 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 23.4 | 1.059 | 21.3, 25.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.929 | 1.482 | -3.83, 1.98 | 0.534 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.85 | 0.579 | -2.98, -0.711 | 0.009 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.892 | 0.896 | -0.864, 2.65 | 0.342 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 27.0 | 1.229 | 24.5, 29.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.17 | 1.718 | -4.54, 2.20 | 0.499 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.51 | 1.043 | -3.55, 0.533 | 0.174 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.91 | 1.612 | -1.25, 5.07 | 0.259 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 20.0 | 1.402 | 17.2, 22.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.39 | 1.961 | -1.45, 6.24 | 0.229 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.72 | 1.420 | -0.062, 5.51 | 0.081 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.155 | 2.194 | -4.46, 4.15 | 0.945 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.053 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 11.4 | 0.765 | 9.86, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.419 | 1.070 | -1.68, 2.52 | 0.697 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.02 | 1.041 | -1.02, 3.06 | 0.344 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.42 | 1.603 | -4.56, 1.72 | 0.392 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.7 | 1.141 | 13.4, 17.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.03 | 1.595 | -4.16, 2.10 | 0.522 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.23 | 1.627 | -0.960, 5.42 | 0.188 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.74 | 2.505 | -8.65, 1.17 | 0.153 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.050 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 22.0 | 1.360 | 19.3, 24.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.698 | 1.902 | -3.03, 4.42 | 0.715 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.75 | 1.906 | -1.99, 5.49 | 0.372 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.05 | 2.935 | -8.81, 2.70 | 0.313 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 17.1 | 0.965 | 15.2, 19.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.049 | 1.350 | -2.70, 2.60 | 0.971 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.967 | 1.416 | -1.81, 3.74 | 0.506 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.206 | 2.180 | -4.48, 4.07 | 0.926 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.5 | 0.682 | 12.2, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.413 | 0.953 | -1.46, 2.28 | 0.667 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.361 | 0.755 | -1.84, 1.12 | 0.641 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.69 | 1.166 | -0.591, 3.98 | 0.170 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 17.0 | 0.619 | 15.7, 18.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.437 | 0.865 | -1.26, 2.13 | 0.616 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.34 | 0.775 | -0.181, 2.86 | 0.104 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.12 | 1.195 | -3.46, 1.22 | 0.362 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.673 | 11.0, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.59 | 0.941 | -0.252, 3.44 | 0.097 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.43 | 0.753 | -0.042, 2.91 | 0.080 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.11 | 1.162 | -3.39, 1.17 | 0.358 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.060 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 1.161 | 27.0, 31.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.03 | 1.623 | -1.15, 5.21 | 0.217 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.81 | 1.391 | 0.087, 5.54 | 0.061 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.25 | 2.146 | -6.46, 1.96 | 0.311 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.042 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.2 | 2.134 | 23.0, 31.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.095 | 2.985 | -5.95, 5.76 | 0.975 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.63 | 1.702 | -1.71, 4.97 | 0.359 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.56 | 2.633 | -3.60, 6.72 | 0.565 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.9 | 1.006 | 11.9, 15.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.874 | 1.407 | -1.88, 3.63 | 0.538 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.46 | 1.073 | -0.642, 3.56 | 0.200 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.01 | 1.657 | -4.26, 2.24 | 0.553 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 16.5 | 0.754 | 15.0, 17.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.719 | 1.054 | -1.35, 2.79 | 0.498 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.890 | 0.959 | -0.990, 2.77 | 0.369 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.004 | 1.479 | -2.89, 2.90 | 0.998 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 30.4 | 1.621 | 27.2, 33.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.59 | 2.267 | -2.85, 6.04 | 0.486 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.34 | 1.831 | -1.25, 5.93 | 0.225 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.991 | 2.826 | -6.53, 4.55 | 0.732 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.7 | 0.257 | 12.2, 13.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.379 | 0.359 | -1.08, 0.324 | 0.296 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.848 | 0.476 | -0.086, 1.78 | 0.100 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.847 | 0.727 | -2.27, 0.578 | 0.264 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.097 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 15.3 | 0.723 | 13.9, 16.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.012 | 1.011 | -1.99, 1.97 | 0.991 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.657 | 1.279 | -1.85, 3.16 | 0.612 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.13 | 1.957 | -5.97, 1.70 | 0.285 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 14.1 | 0.829 | 12.5, 15.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.789 | 1.160 | -3.06, 1.49 | 0.500 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.06 | 1.194 | -1.28, 3.40 | 0.389 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.29 | 1.837 | -4.90, 2.31 | 0.492 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 29.4 | 1.424 | 26.6, 32.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.800 | 1.992 | -4.70, 3.10 | 0.689 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.78 | 2.286 | -2.70, 6.26 | 0.445 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -3.47 | 3.510 | -10.4, 3.41 | 0.334 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 20.3 | 0.888 | 18.5, 22.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.403 | 1.242 | -2.84, 2.03 | 0.747 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.534 | 0.823 | -1.08, 2.15 | 0.529 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.516 | 1.272 | -3.01, 1.98 | 0.692 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.566 | 14.0, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.310 | 0.792 | -1.86, 1.24 | 0.697 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.203 | 0.858 | -1.88, 1.48 | 0.816 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.677 | 1.319 | -1.91, 3.26 | 0.613 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.9 | 0.645 | 10.6, 13.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.34 | 0.903 | -3.11, 0.425 | 0.143 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.833 | 0.791 | -2.38, 0.717 | 0.309 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.242 | 1.220 | -2.15, 2.63 | 0.845 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.051 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 9.86 | 0.876 | 8.15, 11.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.777 | 1.225 | -3.18, 1.62 | 0.529 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.306 | 0.668 | -1.62, 1.00 | 0.656 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.712 | 1.033 | -2.74, 1.31 | 0.505 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.0 | 0.914 | 8.21, 11.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.09 | 1.278 | -3.59, 1.42 | 0.400 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.28 | 0.952 | -3.15, 0.584 | 0.203 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.766 | 1.470 | -2.12, 3.65 | 0.612 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.020 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 7.41 | 0.862 | 5.72, 9.10 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.808 | 1.205 | -1.55, 3.17 | 0.506 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.25 | 0.806 | -0.334, 2.83 | 0.148 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.37 | 1.247 | -4.81, 0.077 | 0.082 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 27.3 | 2.469 | 22.4, 32.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.06 | 3.453 | -7.82, 5.71 | 0.761 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.466 | 1.887 | -4.16, 3.23 | 0.809 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.00 | 2.919 | -7.72, 3.72 | 0.508 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.32) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.41 (95% CI [2.91, 3.91], t(51) = 13.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.76], t(51) = 0.20, p = 0.845; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.65])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.23, 1.60], t(51) = 1.48, p = 0.140; Std. beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.87, 0.91], t(51) = -0.68, p = 0.498; Std. beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.77])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.22e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.50 (95% CI [17.40, 19.60], t(51) = 33.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.68, 1.38], t(51) = -0.19, p = 0.846; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.55])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.30, 1.01], t(51) = -0.25, p = 0.804; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.40])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.11, 2.45], t(51) = 0.74, p = 0.462; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.97])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.92) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.23e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.41 (95% CI [28.46, 32.36], t(51) = 30.58, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.96, 3.49], t(51) = 0.55, p = 0.582; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.73])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.94], t(51) = 0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.41])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-2.03, 2.15], t(51) = 0.06, p = 0.954; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.58e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.36 (95% CI [11.52, 13.21], t(51) = 28.69, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-1.28, 1.08], t(51) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.47, 0.59], t(51) = -0.84, p = 0.399; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-1.10, 2.08], t(51) = 0.60, p = 0.548; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.64 (95% CI [16.36, 18.91], t(51) = 27.15, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-1.68, 1.88], t(51) = 0.11, p = 0.910; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.63])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-1.18, 1.41], t(51) = 0.17, p = 0.863; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.90, 95% CI [-2.91, 1.10], t(51) = -0.88, p = 0.377; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.37])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.94) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.33e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.32 (95% CI [12.04, 14.59], t(51) = 20.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-1.41, 2.16], t(51) = 0.41, p = 0.679; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.68])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.93], t(51) = 0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.76], t(51) = 0.84, p = 0.404; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.47) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.08. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.95 (95% CI [9.99, 11.91], t(51) = 22.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.48, 95% CI [-2.82, -0.13], t(51) = -2.16, p = 0.031; Std. beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.20, -0.06])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.12, 95% CI [-2.75, 0.52], t(51) = -1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.17, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.56, 95% CI [-0.94, 4.06], t(51) = 1.22, p = 0.222; Std. beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.73])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.89) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.41 (95% CI [24.11, 32.71], t(51) = 12.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.90, 95% CI [-4.12, 7.91], t(51) = 0.62, p = 0.537; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.76])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.10, 95% CI [-4.59, 2.39], t(51) = -0.62, p = 0.536; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.95, 95% CI [-3.44, 7.34], t(51) = 0.71, p = 0.479; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.70])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.95) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 23.36 (95% CI [21.29, 25.44], t(51) = 22.06, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.93, 95% CI [-3.83, 1.98], t(51) = -0.63, p = 0.531; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.85, 95% CI [-2.98, -0.71], t(51) = -3.19, p = 0.001; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.59, -0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.86, 2.65], t(51) = 1.00, p = 0.319; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.88) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.95 (95% CI [24.55, 29.36], t(51) = 21.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.17, 95% CI [-4.54, 2.20], t(51) = -0.68, p = 0.495; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.51, 95% CI [-3.55, 0.53], t(51) = -1.45, p = 0.147; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.09])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.91, 95% CI [-1.25, 5.07], t(51) = 1.19, p = 0.236; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.86])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.95 (95% CI [17.21, 22.70], t(51) = 14.24, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.39, 95% CI [-1.45, 6.24], t(51) = 1.22, p = 0.222; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.94])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.72, 95% CI [-0.06, 5.51], t(51) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-9.40e-03, 0.83])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-4.46, 4.15], t(51) = -0.07, p = 0.944; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.71e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.36 (95% CI [9.86, 12.86], t(51) = 14.86, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.68, 2.52], t(51) = 0.39, p = 0.695; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-1.02, 3.06], t(51) = 0.98, p = 0.326; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.87])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.42, 95% CI [-4.56, 1.72], t(51) = -0.88, p = 0.377; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-1.30, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.68 (95% CI [13.45, 17.92], t(51) = 13.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-4.16, 2.10], t(51) = -0.65, p = 0.519; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.23, 95% CI [-0.96, 5.42], t(51) = 1.37, p = 0.171; Std. beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.97])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.74, 95% CI [-8.65, 1.17], t(51) = -1.49, p = 0.136; Std. beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.95 (95% CI [19.29, 24.62], t(51) = 16.15, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-3.03, 4.42], t(51) = 0.37, p = 0.714; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.69])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.75, 95% CI [-1.99, 5.49], t(51) = 0.92, p = 0.359; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.86])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.05, 95% CI [-8.81, 2.70], t(51) = -1.04, p = 0.298; Std. beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.37, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.63e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.14 (95% CI [15.24, 19.03], t(51) = 17.75, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-2.70, 2.60], t(51) = -0.04, p = 0.971; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [-1.81, 3.74], t(51) = 0.68, p = 0.495; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.84])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-4.48, 4.07], t(51) = -0.09, p = 0.925; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.91])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.50 (95% CI [12.16, 14.84], t(51) = 19.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-1.46, 2.28], t(51) = 0.43, p = 0.665; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.84, 1.12], t(51) = -0.48, p = 0.633; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.69, 95% CI [-0.59, 3.98], t(51) = 1.45, p = 0.146; Std. beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.95 (95% CI [15.74, 18.17], t(51) = 27.41, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.26, 2.13], t(51) = 0.50, p = 0.614; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.34, 95% CI [-0.18, 2.86], t(51) = 1.73, p = 0.084; Std. beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.95])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.12, 95% CI [-3.46, 1.22], t(51) = -0.94, p = 0.348; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.36 (95% CI [11.04, 13.68], t(51) = 18.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.59, 95% CI [-0.25, 3.44], t(51) = 1.69, p = 0.091; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.08, 1.06])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.43, 95% CI [-0.04, 2.91], t(51) = 1.90, p = 0.057; Std. beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.89])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.11, 95% CI [-3.39, 1.17], t(51) = -0.95, p = 0.340; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.36])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.32 (95% CI [27.04, 31.59], t(51) = 25.26, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.03, 95% CI [-1.15, 5.21], t(51) = 1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.91])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.81, 95% CI [0.09, 5.54], t(51) = 2.02, p = 0.043; Std. beta = 0.49, 95% CI [0.02, 0.97])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.25, 95% CI [-6.46, 1.96], t(51) = -1.05, p = 0.295; Std. beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.13, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.89e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.18 (95% CI [23.00, 31.36], t(51) = 12.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-5.95, 5.76], t(51) = -0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = -9.59e-03, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.63, 95% CI [-1.71, 4.97], t(51) = 0.96, p = 0.339; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.50])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.56, 95% CI [-3.60, 6.72], t(51) = 0.59, p = 0.553; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.68])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.91 (95% CI [11.94, 15.88], t(51) = 13.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.87, 95% CI [-1.88, 3.63], t(51) = 0.62, p = 0.535; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.78])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.46, 95% CI [-0.64, 3.56], t(51) = 1.36, p = 0.173; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.76])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.01, 95% CI [-4.26, 2.24], t(51) = -0.61, p = 0.541; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.91, 0.48])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.45 (95% CI [14.98, 17.93], t(51) = 21.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-1.35, 2.79], t(51) = 0.68, p = 0.495; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.78])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.99, 2.77], t(51) = 0.93, p = 0.353; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.78])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 3.51e-03, 95% CI [-2.89, 2.90], t(51) = 2.37e-03, p = 0.998; Std. beta = 9.86e-04, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.82])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 30.36 (95% CI [27.19, 33.54], t(51) = 18.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.59, 95% CI [-2.85, 6.04], t(51) = 0.70, p = 0.482; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.79])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.34, 95% CI [-1.25, 5.93], t(51) = 1.28, p = 0.202; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.78])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.99, 95% CI [-6.53, 4.55], t(51) = -0.35, p = 0.726; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.73 (95% CI [12.22, 13.23], t(51) = 49.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.32], t(51) = -1.06, p = 0.290; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.26])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.78], t(51) = 1.78, p = 0.075; Std. beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.27, 0.58], t(51) = -1.16, p = 0.244; Std. beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.84, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.38) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.27 (95% CI [13.86, 16.69], t(51) = 21.13, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.99, 1.97], t(51) = -0.01, p = 0.991; Std. beta = -3.49e-03, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.85, 3.16], t(51) = 0.51, p = 0.607; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.93])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.13, 95% CI [-5.97, 1.70], t(51) = -1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.76, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.14 (95% CI [12.51, 15.76], t(51) = 17.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-3.06, 1.49], t(51) = -0.68, p = 0.497; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [-1.28, 3.40], t(51) = 0.89, p = 0.374; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.87])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-4.90, 2.31], t(51) = -0.70, p = 0.481; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.25, 0.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.52) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.41 (95% CI [26.62, 32.20], t(51) = 20.65, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.80, 95% CI [-4.70, 3.10], t(51) = -0.40, p = 0.688; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.78, 95% CI [-2.70, 6.26], t(51) = 0.78, p = 0.436; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.93])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.47, 95% CI [-10.35, 3.41], t(51) = -0.99, p = 0.323; Std. beta = -0.51, 95% CI [-1.53, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.63e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.27 (95% CI [18.53, 22.01], t(51) = 22.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-2.84, 2.03], t(51) = -0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.08, 2.15], t(51) = 0.65, p = 0.517; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.51])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-3.01, 1.98], t(51) = -0.41, p = 0.685; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.47])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.00e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.14 (95% CI [14.03, 16.25], t(51) = 26.72, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.86, 1.24], t(51) = -0.39, p = 0.695; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.47])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.88, 1.48], t(51) = -0.24, p = 0.813; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.55])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-1.91, 3.26], t(51) = 0.51, p = 0.608; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.91 (95% CI [10.64, 13.17], t(51) = 18.46, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.34, 95% CI [-3.11, 0.43], t(51) = -1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.98, 0.13])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-2.38, 0.72], t(51) = -1.05, p = 0.292; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-2.15, 2.63], t(51) = 0.20, p = 0.843; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.83])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.91) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.86 (95% CI [8.15, 11.58], t(51) = 11.26, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.78, 95% CI [-3.18, 1.62], t(51) = -0.63, p = 0.526; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.62, 1.00], t(51) = -0.46, p = 0.647; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.71, 95% CI [-2.74, 1.31], t(51) = -0.69, p = 0.490; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.00 (95% CI [8.21, 11.79], t(51) = 10.94, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.09, 95% CI [-3.59, 1.42], t(51) = -0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.33])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.28, 95% CI [-3.15, 0.58], t(51) = -1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-2.12, 3.65], t(51) = 0.52, p = 0.602; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.85])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 7.41 (95% CI [5.72, 9.10], t(51) = 8.60, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-1.55, 3.17], t(51) = 0.67, p = 0.502; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.78])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.25, 95% CI [-0.33, 2.83], t(51) = 1.55, p = 0.122; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.69])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.37, 95% CI [-4.81, 0.08], t(51) = -1.90, p = 0.058; Std. beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.02])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.90) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.27 (95% CI [22.43, 32.11], t(51) = 11.05, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-7.82, 5.71], t(51) = -0.31, p = 0.760; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-4.16, 3.23], t(51) = -0.25, p = 0.805; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.00, 95% CI [-7.72, 3.72], t(51) = -0.68, p = 0.494; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 184.696 | 190.826 | -89.348 | 178.696 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 188.226 | 200.484 | -88.113 | 176.226 | 2.470 | 3 | 0.481 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 261.227 | 267.356 | -127.613 | 255.227 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 266.493 | 278.752 | -127.247 | 254.493 | 0.733 | 3 | 0.865 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 318.216 | 324.346 | -156.108 | 312.216 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 322.417 | 334.675 | -155.208 | 310.417 | 1.800 | 3 | 0.615 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 235.084 | 241.213 | -114.542 | 229.084 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 240.267 | 252.526 | -114.134 | 228.267 | 0.817 | 3 | 0.846 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 278.083 | 284.212 | -136.041 | 272.083 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 282.896 | 295.154 | -135.448 | 270.896 | 1.187 | 3 | 0.756 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 268.065 | 274.194 | -131.032 | 262.065 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 271.667 | 283.926 | -129.834 | 259.667 | 2.397 | 3 | 0.494 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 261.462 | 267.591 | -127.731 | 255.462 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 261.943 | 274.201 | -124.971 | 249.943 | 5.519 | 3 | 0.137 |
symptom | null | 3 | 411.460 | 417.590 | -202.730 | 405.460 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 416.347 | 428.605 | -202.173 | 404.347 | 1.113 | 3 | 0.774 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 326.864 | 332.993 | -160.432 | 320.864 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 323.929 | 336.187 | -155.964 | 311.929 | 8.935 | 3 | 0.030 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 347.843 | 353.972 | -170.921 | 341.843 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 351.280 | 363.538 | -169.640 | 339.280 | 2.563 | 3 | 0.464 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 371.718 | 377.847 | -182.859 | 365.718 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 370.439 | 382.698 | -179.220 | 358.439 | 7.279 | 3 | 0.064 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 303.312 | 309.441 | -148.656 | 297.312 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 308.090 | 320.348 | -148.045 | 296.090 | 1.222 | 3 | 0.748 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 352.491 | 358.620 | -173.245 | 346.491 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 354.705 | 366.963 | -171.352 | 342.705 | 3.786 | 3 | 0.285 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 369.643 | 375.772 | -181.821 | 363.643 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 374.344 | 386.602 | -181.172 | 362.344 | 1.299 | 3 | 0.729 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 330.974 | 337.103 | -162.487 | 324.974 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 336.285 | 348.543 | -162.142 | 324.285 | 0.689 | 3 | 0.876 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 287.436 | 293.566 | -140.718 | 281.436 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 290.331 | 302.590 | -139.166 | 278.331 | 3.105 | 3 | 0.376 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 279.311 | 285.441 | -136.656 | 273.311 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 282.073 | 294.331 | -135.036 | 270.073 | 3.239 | 3 | 0.356 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 289.250 | 295.379 | -141.625 | 283.250 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 289.084 | 301.342 | -138.542 | 277.084 | 6.166 | 3 | 0.104 |
els | null | 3 | 352.170 | 358.299 | -173.085 | 346.170 | |||
els | random | 6 | 352.805 | 365.064 | -170.403 | 340.805 | 5.365 | 3 | 0.147 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 410.088 | 416.217 | -202.044 | 404.088 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 412.776 | 425.034 | -200.388 | 400.776 | 3.312 | 3 | 0.346 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 330.191 | 336.320 | -162.095 | 324.191 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 333.808 | 346.066 | -160.904 | 321.808 | 2.383 | 3 | 0.497 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 301.021 | 307.151 | -147.511 | 295.021 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 304.956 | 317.214 | -146.478 | 292.956 | 2.066 | 3 | 0.559 |
shs | null | 3 | 386.081 | 392.210 | -190.040 | 380.081 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 389.518 | 401.776 | -188.759 | 377.518 | 2.563 | 3 | 0.464 |
esteem | null | 3 | 189.897 | 196.026 | -91.948 | 183.897 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 189.806 | 202.064 | -88.903 | 177.806 | 6.091 | 3 | 0.107 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 302.511 | 308.641 | -148.256 | 296.511 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 307.066 | 319.325 | -147.533 | 295.066 | 1.445 | 3 | 0.695 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 314.214 | 320.343 | -154.107 | 308.214 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 318.572 | 330.831 | -153.286 | 306.572 | 1.642 | 3 | 0.650 |
mlq | null | 3 | 378.028 | 384.158 | -186.014 | 372.028 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 382.494 | 394.753 | -185.247 | 370.494 | 1.534 | 3 | 0.674 |
empower | null | 3 | 310.935 | 317.064 | -152.468 | 304.935 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 316.330 | 328.588 | -152.165 | 304.330 | 0.605 | 3 | 0.895 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 270.607 | 276.736 | -132.304 | 264.607 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 276.212 | 288.470 | -132.106 | 264.212 | 0.396 | 3 | 0.941 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 284.166 | 290.295 | -139.083 | 278.166 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 286.405 | 298.663 | -137.203 | 274.405 | 3.761 | 3 | 0.288 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 306.725 | 312.854 | -150.362 | 300.725 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 310.175 | 322.433 | -149.088 | 298.175 | 2.550 | 3 | 0.466 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 319.034 | 325.163 | -156.517 | 313.034 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 322.303 | 334.561 | -155.151 | 310.303 | 2.731 | 3 | 0.435 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 311.148 | 317.277 | -152.574 | 305.148 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 313.118 | 325.376 | -150.559 | 301.118 | 4.030 | 3 | 0.258 |
sss | null | 3 | 423.928 | 430.057 | -208.964 | 417.928 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 428.367 | 440.625 | -208.183 | 416.367 | 1.562 | 3 | 0.668 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 22 | 3.41 ± 1.19 | 23 | 3.48 ± 1.19 | 0.846 | -0.069 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 7 | 4.09 ± 1.22 | -0.688 | 5 | 3.68 ± 1.22 | -0.205 | 0.567 | 0.413 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 22 | 18.50 ± 2.62 | 23 | 18.35 ± 2.62 | 0.847 | 0.134 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 7 | 18.35 ± 1.97 | 0.128 | 5 | 18.87 ± 1.85 | -0.459 | 0.645 | -0.454 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 22 | 30.41 ± 4.66 | 23 | 31.17 ± 4.66 | 0.585 | -0.584 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 7 | 31.00 ± 3.03 | -0.449 | 5 | 31.82 ± 2.71 | -0.496 | 0.623 | -0.631 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 22 | 12.36 ± 2.02 | 23 | 12.26 ± 2.02 | 0.865 | 0.100 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 7 | 11.92 ± 1.63 | 0.430 | 5 | 12.30 ± 1.56 | -0.043 | 0.682 | -0.373 |
ras_goal | 1st | 22 | 17.64 ± 3.05 | 23 | 17.74 ± 3.05 | 0.910 | -0.081 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 7 | 17.75 ± 2.25 | -0.089 | 5 | 16.95 ± 2.11 | 0.618 | 0.533 | 0.627 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 22 | 13.32 ± 3.05 | 23 | 13.70 ± 3.05 | 0.681 | -0.491 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 7 | 13.45 ± 1.94 | -0.171 | 5 | 14.35 ± 1.71 | -0.855 | 0.399 | -1.174 |
ras_domination | 1st | 22 | 10.95 ± 2.30 | 23 | 9.48 ± 2.30 | 0.036 | 0.850 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 7 | 9.84 ± 2.25 | 0.643 | 5 | 9.92 ± 2.24 | -0.254 | 0.950 | -0.047 |
symptom | 1st | 22 | 28.41 ± 10.30 | 23 | 30.30 ± 10.30 | 0.540 | -0.559 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 7 | 27.31 ± 7.00 | 0.324 | 5 | 31.15 ± 6.37 | -0.250 | 0.328 | -1.133 |
slof_work | 1st | 22 | 23.36 ± 4.97 | 23 | 22.43 ± 4.97 | 0.534 | 0.851 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 7 | 21.52 ± 3.08 | 1.691 | 5 | 21.48 ± 2.68 | 0.874 | 0.982 | 0.034 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 22 | 26.95 ± 5.76 | 23 | 25.78 ± 5.76 | 0.499 | 0.588 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 7 | 25.44 ± 3.98 | 0.758 | 5 | 26.18 ± 3.64 | -0.202 | 0.740 | -0.372 |
satisfaction | 1st | 22 | 19.95 ± 6.57 | 23 | 22.35 ± 6.57 | 0.229 | -0.874 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 7 | 22.68 ± 4.85 | -0.993 | 5 | 24.91 ± 4.54 | -0.937 | 0.418 | -0.817 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 22 | 11.36 ± 3.59 | 23 | 11.78 ± 3.59 | 0.697 | -0.203 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 7 | 12.39 ± 3.06 | -0.494 | 5 | 11.39 ± 2.98 | 0.192 | 0.575 | 0.483 |
mhc_social | 1st | 22 | 15.68 ± 5.35 | 23 | 14.65 ± 5.35 | 0.522 | 0.316 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 7 | 17.91 ± 4.69 | -0.684 | 5 | 13.14 ± 4.59 | 0.463 | 0.088 | 1.464 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 22 | 21.95 ± 6.38 | 23 | 22.65 ± 6.38 | 0.715 | -0.183 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 7 | 23.70 ± 5.54 | -0.460 | 5 | 21.35 ± 5.40 | 0.343 | 0.467 | 0.619 |
resilisnce | 1st | 22 | 17.14 ± 4.53 | 23 | 17.09 ± 4.53 | 0.971 | 0.017 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 7 | 18.10 ± 4.04 | -0.339 | 5 | 17.85 ± 3.96 | -0.267 | 0.914 | 0.089 |
social_provision | 1st | 22 | 13.50 ± 3.20 | 23 | 13.91 ± 3.20 | 0.667 | -0.282 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 7 | 13.14 ± 2.45 | 0.246 | 5 | 15.25 ± 2.32 | -0.910 | 0.139 | -1.437 |
els_value_living | 1st | 22 | 16.95 ± 2.90 | 23 | 17.39 ± 2.90 | 0.616 | -0.287 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 7 | 18.29 ± 2.37 | -0.878 | 5 | 17.61 ± 2.28 | -0.142 | 0.617 | 0.449 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 22 | 12.36 ± 3.16 | 23 | 13.96 ± 3.16 | 0.097 | -1.089 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 7 | 13.80 ± 2.43 | -0.980 | 5 | 14.28 ± 2.31 | -0.221 | 0.729 | -0.330 |
els | 1st | 22 | 29.32 ± 5.44 | 23 | 31.35 ± 5.44 | 0.218 | -0.746 | ||
els | 2nd | 7 | 32.13 ± 4.34 | -1.034 | 5 | 31.91 ± 4.15 | -0.207 | 0.930 | 0.081 |
social_connect | 1st | 22 | 27.18 ± 10.01 | 23 | 27.09 ± 10.01 | 0.975 | 0.029 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 7 | 28.81 ± 6.77 | -0.502 | 5 | 30.28 ± 6.15 | -0.984 | 0.698 | -0.453 |
shs_agency | 1st | 22 | 13.91 ± 4.72 | 23 | 14.78 ± 4.72 | 0.538 | -0.420 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 7 | 15.37 ± 3.56 | -0.703 | 5 | 15.23 ± 3.35 | -0.216 | 0.945 | 0.067 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 22 | 16.45 ± 3.54 | 23 | 17.17 ± 3.54 | 0.499 | -0.381 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 7 | 17.34 ± 2.91 | -0.471 | 5 | 18.07 ± 2.80 | -0.473 | 0.667 | -0.383 |
shs | 1st | 22 | 30.36 ± 7.60 | 23 | 31.96 ± 7.60 | 0.486 | -0.447 | ||
shs | 2nd | 7 | 32.70 ± 5.89 | -0.657 | 5 | 33.30 ± 5.59 | -0.378 | 0.858 | -0.169 |
esteem | 1st | 22 | 12.73 ± 1.20 | 23 | 12.35 ± 1.20 | 0.295 | 0.369 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 7 | 13.57 ± 1.24 | -0.825 | 5 | 12.35 ± 1.25 | -0.001 | 0.099 | 1.193 |
mlq_search | 1st | 22 | 15.27 ± 3.39 | 23 | 15.26 ± 3.39 | 0.991 | 0.004 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 7 | 15.93 ± 3.40 | -0.243 | 5 | 13.79 ± 3.40 | 0.545 | 0.288 | 0.793 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 22 | 14.14 ± 3.89 | 23 | 13.35 ± 3.89 | 0.500 | 0.330 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 7 | 15.20 ± 3.43 | -0.443 | 5 | 13.11 ± 3.36 | 0.098 | 0.302 | 0.871 |
mlq | 1st | 22 | 29.41 ± 6.68 | 23 | 28.61 ± 6.68 | 0.690 | 0.171 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 7 | 31.19 ± 6.30 | -0.380 | 5 | 26.92 ± 6.24 | 0.360 | 0.252 | 0.911 |
empower | 1st | 22 | 20.27 ± 4.17 | 23 | 19.87 ± 4.17 | 0.747 | 0.255 | ||
empower | 2nd | 7 | 20.81 ± 2.96 | -0.338 | 5 | 19.89 ± 2.74 | -0.011 | 0.583 | 0.582 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 22 | 15.14 ± 2.66 | 23 | 14.83 ± 2.66 | 0.697 | 0.179 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 7 | 14.93 ± 2.42 | 0.117 | 5 | 15.30 ± 2.38 | -0.273 | 0.795 | -0.211 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 22 | 11.91 ± 3.03 | 23 | 10.57 ± 3.03 | 0.143 | 0.866 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 7 | 11.08 ± 2.44 | 0.537 | 5 | 9.97 ± 2.34 | 0.381 | 0.436 | 0.710 |
sss_affective | 1st | 22 | 9.86 ± 4.11 | 23 | 9.09 ± 4.11 | 0.529 | 0.611 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 7 | 9.56 ± 2.74 | 0.241 | 5 | 8.07 ± 2.48 | 0.802 | 0.331 | 1.172 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 22 | 10.00 ± 4.29 | 23 | 8.91 ± 4.29 | 0.400 | 0.591 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 7 | 8.72 ± 3.20 | 0.697 | 5 | 8.40 ± 3.00 | 0.280 | 0.860 | 0.174 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 22 | 7.41 ± 4.04 | 23 | 8.22 ± 4.04 | 0.506 | -0.522 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 7 | 8.66 ± 2.89 | -0.805 | 5 | 7.10 ± 2.67 | 0.723 | 0.342 | 1.007 |
sss | 1st | 22 | 27.27 ± 11.58 | 23 | 26.22 ± 11.58 | 0.761 | 0.294 | ||
sss | 2nd | 7 | 26.81 ± 7.73 | 0.130 | 5 | 23.75 ± 6.99 | 0.686 | 0.479 | 0.850 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(51.38) = 0.20, p = 0.846, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.64 to 0.78)
2st
t(42.30) = -0.58, p = 0.567, Cohen d = 0.41, 95% CI (-1.85 to 1.03)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(45.06) = -0.19, p = 0.847, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.73 to 1.42)
2st
t(36.28) = 0.46, p = 0.645, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-1.74 to 2.77)
ras_confidence
1st
t(43.82) = 0.55, p = 0.585, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (-2.04 to 3.57)
2st
t(49.29) = 0.50, p = 0.623, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-2.53 to 4.18)
ras_willingness
1st
t(45.92) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-1.32 to 1.11)
2st
t(32.95) = 0.41, p = 0.682, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-1.51 to 2.28)
ras_goal
1st
t(44.91) = 0.11, p = 0.910, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.73 to 1.93)
2st
t(37.26) = -0.63, p = 0.533, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-3.37 to 1.77)
ras_reliance
1st
t(43.65) = 0.41, p = 0.681, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-1.46 to 2.21)
2st
t(51.45) = 0.85, p = 0.399, Cohen d = -1.17, 95% CI (-1.23 to 3.03)
ras_domination
1st
t(49.90) = -2.16, p = 0.036, Cohen d = 0.85, 95% CI (-2.85 to -0.10)
2st
t(36.41) = 0.06, p = 0.950, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.58 to 2.74)
symptom
1st
t(44.14) = 0.62, p = 0.540, Cohen d = -0.56, 95% CI (-4.29 to 8.08)
2st
t(44.75) = 0.99, p = 0.328, Cohen d = -1.13, 95% CI (-3.98 to 11.67)
slof_work
1st
t(43.49) = -0.63, p = 0.534, Cohen d = 0.85, 95% CI (-3.92 to 2.06)
2st
t(52.82) = -0.02, p = 0.982, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-3.39 to 3.31)
slof_relationship
1st
t(44.27) = -0.68, p = 0.499, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-4.63 to 2.29)
2st
t(43.22) = 0.33, p = 0.740, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-3.73 to 5.21)
satisfaction
1st
t(44.88) = 1.22, p = 0.229, Cohen d = -0.87, 95% CI (-1.56 to 6.34)
2st
t(37.40) = 0.82, p = 0.418, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (-3.30 to 7.78)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(46.83) = 0.39, p = 0.697, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.57)
2st
t(31.83) = -0.57, p = 0.575, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-4.59 to 2.60)
mhc_social
1st
t(47.32) = -0.65, p = 0.522, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-4.24 to 2.18)
2st
t(31.84) = -1.76, p = 0.088, Cohen d = 1.46, 95% CI (-10.29 to 0.76)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(47.14) = 0.37, p = 0.715, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-3.13 to 4.52)
2st
t(31.79) = -0.74, p = 0.467, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-8.87 to 4.16)
resilisnce
1st
t(47.65) = -0.04, p = 0.971, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-2.76 to 2.67)
2st
t(32.02) = -0.11, p = 0.914, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-5.02 to 4.51)
social_provision
1st
t(45.32) = 0.43, p = 0.667, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.51 to 2.33)
2st
t(34.94) = 1.51, p = 0.139, Cohen d = -1.44, 95% CI (-0.72 to 4.94)
els_value_living
1st
t(46.12) = 0.50, p = 0.616, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.30 to 2.18)
2st
t(32.56) = -0.50, p = 0.617, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-3.44 to 2.07)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(45.37) = 1.69, p = 0.097, Cohen d = -1.09, 95% CI (-0.30 to 3.49)
2st
t(34.72) = 0.35, p = 0.729, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-2.32 to 3.29)
els
1st
t(45.80) = 1.25, p = 0.218, Cohen d = -0.75, 95% CI (-1.24 to 5.30)
2st
t(33.26) = -0.09, p = 0.930, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-5.26 to 4.82)
social_connect
1st
t(44.10) = -0.03, p = 0.975, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-6.11 to 5.92)
2st
t(45.27) = 0.39, p = 0.698, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-6.10 to 9.03)
shs_agency
1st
t(45.12) = 0.62, p = 0.538, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-1.96 to 3.71)
2st
t(35.93) = -0.07, p = 0.945, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-4.22 to 3.95)
shs_pathway
1st
t(46.24) = 0.68, p = 0.499, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-1.40 to 2.84)
2st
t(32.36) = 0.43, p = 0.667, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-2.67 to 4.12)
shs
1st
t(45.43) = 0.70, p = 0.486, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-2.97 to 6.16)
2st
t(34.49) = 0.18, p = 0.858, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-6.20 to 7.40)
esteem
1st
t(51.63) = -1.06, p = 0.295, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.34)
2st
t(43.63) = -1.68, p = 0.099, Cohen d = 1.19, 95% CI (-2.69 to 0.24)
mlq_search
1st
t(50.66) = -0.01, p = 0.991, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-2.04 to 2.02)
2st
t(39.08) = -1.08, p = 0.288, Cohen d = 0.79, 95% CI (-6.17 to 1.88)
mlq_presence
1st
t(47.42) = -0.68, p = 0.500, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-3.12 to 1.54)
2st
t(31.88) = -1.05, p = 0.302, Cohen d = 0.87, 95% CI (-6.12 to 1.96)
mlq
1st
t(48.91) = -0.40, p = 0.690, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-4.80 to 3.20)
2st
t(33.84) = -1.16, p = 0.252, Cohen d = 0.91, 95% CI (-11.73 to 3.19)
empower
1st
t(44.54) = -0.32, p = 0.747, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-2.91 to 2.10)
2st
t(40.25) = -0.55, p = 0.583, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-4.28 to 2.44)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(48.06) = -0.39, p = 0.697, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.90 to 1.28)
2st
t(32.43) = 0.26, p = 0.795, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-2.49 to 3.22)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(45.96) = -1.49, p = 0.143, Cohen d = 0.87, 95% CI (-3.16 to 0.47)
2st
t(32.87) = -0.79, p = 0.436, Cohen d = 0.71, 95% CI (-3.94 to 1.74)
sss_affective
1st
t(44.00) = -0.63, p = 0.529, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-3.25 to 1.69)
2st
t(46.69) = -0.98, p = 0.331, Cohen d = 1.17, 95% CI (-4.54 to 1.56)
sss_behavior
1st
t(45.01) = -0.85, p = 0.400, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-3.66 to 1.49)
2st
t(36.59) = -0.18, p = 0.860, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-3.98 to 3.34)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(44.57) = 0.67, p = 0.506, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-1.62 to 3.24)
2st
t(39.92) = -0.96, p = 0.342, Cohen d = 1.01, 95% CI (-4.83 to 1.71)
sss
1st
t(44.01) = -0.31, p = 0.761, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-8.01 to 5.90)
2st
t(46.62) = -0.71, p = 0.479, Cohen d = 0.85, 95% CI (-11.66 to 5.56)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(24.02) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.97 to 1.38)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(11.83) = 0.74, p = 0.946, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-1.02 to 2.06)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(10.67) = 0.79, p = 0.893, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-1.17 to 2.46)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(12.75) = 0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.41)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(11.67) = -1.00, p = 0.679, Cohen d = 0.62, 95% CI (-2.52 to 0.94)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(10.53) = 1.36, p = 0.404, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.73)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(19.36) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.69 to 2.57)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(10.96) = 0.40, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-3.82 to 5.52)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(10.40) = -1.39, p = 0.388, Cohen d = 0.87, 95% CI (-2.48 to 0.57)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(11.07) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-2.33 to 3.14)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(11.65) = 1.51, p = 0.316, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (-1.15 to 6.28)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(13.87) = -0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-3.10 to 2.31)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(14.54) = -0.77, p = 0.913, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-5.72 to 2.71)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(14.27) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-6.25 to 3.64)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(15.02) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-2.90 to 4.43)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(12.10) = 1.47, p = 0.334, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (-0.64 to 3.31)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(12.98) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.80 to 2.24)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(12.15) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.64 to 2.29)
els
1st vs 2st
t(12.61) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-3.06 to 4.19)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(10.92) = 1.57, p = 0.288, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (-1.28 to 7.66)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(11.89) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-2.36 to 3.26)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(13.12) = 0.77, p = 0.907, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.60 to 3.39)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(12.21) = 0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-3.44 to 6.13)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(25.13) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-1.20 to 1.20)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(21.46) = -0.94, p = 0.712, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-4.72 to 1.77)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(14.68) = -0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-3.32 to 2.86)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(17.17) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-7.56 to 4.18)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(11.32) = 0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.14 to 2.17)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(15.66) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.74 to 2.69)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(12.79) = -0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-2.65 to 1.47)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(10.83) = -1.28, p = 0.454, Cohen d = 0.80, 95% CI (-2.77 to 0.74)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(11.78) = -0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.01 to 1.98)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(11.35) = -1.16, p = 0.538, Cohen d = 0.72, 95% CI (-3.23 to 0.99)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(10.84) = -1.10, p = 0.594, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-7.42 to 2.49)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(21.08) = 1.41, p = 0.348, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.70)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(11.56) = -0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.45 to 1.16)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(10.58) = 0.85, p = 0.833, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.95 to 2.12)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(12.33) = -0.82, p = 0.850, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-1.61 to 0.72)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(11.43) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.36 to 1.58)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(10.46) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.77 to 1.04)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(17.57) = -1.29, p = 0.431, Cohen d = 0.64, 95% CI (-2.95 to 0.71)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(10.83) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-5.06 to 2.86)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(10.35) = -3.18, p = 0.019, Cohen d = 1.69, 95% CI (-3.13 to -0.56)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(10.92) = -1.43, p = 0.359, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-3.83 to 0.81)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(11.42) = 1.89, p = 0.169, Cohen d = -0.99, 95% CI (-0.44 to 5.88)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(13.25) = 0.96, p = 0.713, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-1.28 to 3.33)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(13.79) = 1.33, p = 0.410, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-1.37 to 5.83)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(13.58) = 0.89, p = 0.776, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-2.47 to 5.97)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(14.18) = 0.66, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-2.16 to 4.10)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(11.79) = -0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-2.04 to 1.32)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(12.52) = 1.69, p = 0.233, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (-0.38 to 3.06)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(11.83) = 1.87, p = 0.173, Cohen d = -0.98, 95% CI (-0.24 to 3.11)
els
1st vs 2st
t(12.22) = 1.98, p = 0.141, Cohen d = -1.03, 95% CI (-0.27 to 5.90)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(10.80) = 0.95, p = 0.727, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-2.16 to 5.42)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(11.62) = 1.34, p = 0.412, Cohen d = -0.70, 95% CI (-0.92 to 3.85)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(12.64) = 0.91, p = 0.763, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.24 to 3.02)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(11.88) = 1.25, p = 0.468, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-1.73 to 6.40)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(21.90) = 1.70, p = 0.208, Cohen d = -0.82, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.88)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(19.17) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-2.14 to 3.46)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(13.91) = 0.86, p = 0.807, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-1.58 to 3.70)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(15.88) = 0.75, p = 0.928, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-3.25 to 6.82)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(11.13) = 0.64, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.30 to 2.36)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(14.69) = -0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.10 to 1.69)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(12.37) = -1.03, p = 0.645, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-2.59 to 0.92)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(10.72) = -0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-1.79 to 1.18)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(11.52) = -1.33, p = 0.421, Cohen d = 0.70, 95% CI (-3.40 to 0.83)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(11.16) = 1.53, p = 0.309, Cohen d = -0.81, 95% CI (-0.55 to 3.04)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(10.72) = -0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-4.67 to 3.73)